The local media, in this case the North County Times looks to finally be getting the story right, and is attempting to hold San Diego County Registrar Mikel Haas accountable for his prevarications concerning the Diebold voting machine "sleepovers" that violated new state and federal laws and security requirements during the now-disputed June 6th U.S. House special election between Francine Busby and Brian Bilbray in California's 50th congressional district.

San Diego County's Democratic Party Chair, Jess Durfee is joining the growing calls for accountability in the matter, according to this morning's Times by calling for hearings on the matter and new legislation to ban the procedure known as "Sleepovers" where poll workers are given programmed, election-ready, hackable voting machines to store in their homes, cars and garages for days and weeks prior to the election. It's been shown that these machines, both Diebold's optical-scan and touch-screen voting systems, are exceedingly vulnerable to tampering and can be hacked within a few minutes time with no password necessary.

Previously, dozens of organizations and thousands of individuals have declared "No Confidence" in the results of the "bellwether" election and had demanded hand counts of all ballots after Haas' security breaches resulted in the use of decertified voting machines, and thus, illegal votes were cast on them across the entire county. Last Friday, the national Democratic Party joined the call in demanding accountability and a full manual count of all ballots in the race.

See the Times report for more details, a statement from state Senator Debra Bowen, and attempted obfuscations from Haas, but here's the opening grafs and one misdirect that Haas was allowed to get away with...

SAN DIEGO ---- The head of the local Democratic Party said Monday he will ask the San Diego County Board of Supervisors today to schedule public hearings to investigate the county's handling of the June primary, including its decision to send electronic voting machines home with poll workers several days before the election.

Jess Durfee, chairman of the San Diego County Democratic Party, said he will stress during a public comment period in the morning board meeting and in a press conference afterwards that election integrity was compromised by what he calls the "sleep over" policy. Durfee said it is his hope that a round of public hearings will yield a new set of reforms, including a ban on the practice.

One point that Haas attempted to get away with in the piece, and which wasn't effectively rebutted by the Times, related to his (obviously disingenous) point that he "could not understand the concern" about the sleepovers...

For starters, the machines are placed only with poll inspectors, he said

"We just don't give this stuff out like candy," Haas said.

What the Times failed to report, or perhaps check out, were the comments from many of the poll workers that we've spoken to here at The BRAD BLOG who reported they were given absolutely no instructions concerning the security of the systems before they were handed them to take home for days and weeks prior to the election. Also, they failed to call Haas on his ridiculous claim that simply because the machines only went to poll inspectors, they were somehow safe from tampering.

California Sec. of State Bruce McPherson's own team of computer scientists and computer security experts have recommended that programmed memory cards and voting machines never be out of the control of at least two officials at any one time. The suggestion that poll inspectors are to be trusted, as Haas has also suggested we spoke with him, is absurd.

During our interview with Haas, he claimed he was unaware of any election official ever indicted for election malfeasance. We gave him several examples about which he claimed to be unaware. And, of course, that was before the 43 criminal charges against 13-year Monterey County, CA Registrar of Voters Tony Anchundo had come fully to light just a few days later.

OK, so San Diego County's Democratic Party Chair, Jess Durfee doesn't look "ignorant" but he still gets the "spineless" title for not demanding an immediate MANUAL COUNT of the ballots and providing some funding towards that end.

He gives the Board of Supervisors (and by proxy, Haas) the easy "out" of saying: "Hmmm, this was horrible. We'll never do that again." And they are off the hook and it's all done and gone.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!

They are getting better and better at hiding and covering up their crimes. There will be fewer and fewer opportunities to expose the trickery of electronic vote counting. NOW is the MOMENT to fight hard. CA-50 is the PLACE to FIGHT HARD.

Hearings are SHIT. They are a delaying tactic in a war of attrition where Democracy and fair elections are the stakes.

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance ag ainst arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]...
make it happen
said on 7/18/2006 @ 4:31 pm PT...

"San Diego County's Democratic Party Chair, Jess Durfee is joining the growing calls for accountability in the matter, according to this morning's Times by calling for hearings on the matter and new legislation to ban the procedure known as "Sleepovers" where poll workers are given programmed, election-ready, hackable voting machines to store in their homes, cars and garages for days and weeks prior to the election."

I was under the impression, based on my reading here, that the 'sleepover' practice was already a violation of State and Federal law.

Why call for a ban instead of enforcement?

What are the alternatives, and how are the alternatives any more secure? How would the machines get from the secured location to the polling place and what chain of custody issues are in play?

If seals were placed on machines and tabulated locally after the polls closed and before being connected to a central tabulator so that results could be individually tallied if a machine was found to be compromised, how would machines not given to poll workers be any safer?

A question for Brad: Are you at all worried that any new legislation proposed might actually entrench the use of the machines based on a perceived tightening of security protocols?

[Art.] 11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.] All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election. Every person shall be considered an inh abitant for the purposes of voting in the town, ward, or unincorporated place where he has his domicile. No person shall have the right to vote under the constitution of this state who has been convicted of treason, bribery or any willful violation of the election laws of this state or of the United States; but the supreme court may, on notice to the attorney general, restore the privilege to vote to any person who may have forfeited it by conviction of such offenses. The general court shall provide by l aw for voting by qualified voters who at the time of the biennial or state elections, or of the primary elections therefor, or of city elections, or of town elections by official ballot, are absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants, or w ho by reason of physical disability are unable to vote in person, in the choice of any officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. Voting registration and polling places shall be easily accessible to all persons inc luding disabled and elderly persons who are otherwise qualified to vote in the choice of any officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. The right to vote shall not be denied to any person because of the non-payment of any tax. Every inhabitant of the state, having the proper qualifications, has equal right to be elected into office.

June 2, 1784
Amended 1903 to provide that in order to vote or be eligible for office a person must be able to read the English language and to write.
Amended 19l2 to prohibit those convicted of treason, bribery or willfull violation of the election laws from voting or holding elective office.
Amended 1942 to provide for absentee voting in general elections.
Amended 1956 to provide for absentee voting in primary elections.
Amended 1968 to provide right to vote not denied because of nonpayment of taxes. Also amended in 1968 to delete an obsolete phrase.
Amended 1976 to reduce voting age to 18.
Amended 1984 to provide accessibility to all registration and polling places.

I posted this under a different post, but am re-posting here because it is more appropriate here. My fear with the "no sleepovers" tactic is that we are providing a reason/basis for moving away from poll voting to all vote by mail. The "no sleepovers" tactic does not address the real problem which is easily hackable equipment, secret software, secret vote counting and corrupt vendors.

Elizabeth - One step at a time. The E-Voting noose continues to tighten, and as one such matter after another helps publicly expose the pitfalls of e-voting, I suspect many changes will then have to occur. As both Bowen and Yolo County Registar Freddie Oakley have now pointed out: "If we can't deploy them securely, then perhaps we can't use them at all."

Make it Happen asked:

A question for Brad: Are you at all worried that any new legislation proposed might actually entrench the use of the machines based on a perceived tightening of security protocols?

Not really. There are many parallel efforts here to expose the problems with our current paradigms that allow the secret, private, untested software and hardware to be used. I'm convinced all of the debate and scrutiny to all of the above problems will help us move towards something that makes sense and away from the wholly dysfunctional, absolutely insane systems that we now have.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]...
make it happen
said on 7/18/2006 @ 5:57 pm PT...

Brad:

Is there a link you could point me to where I could read up on your positions on electronic voting and solutions you or others you support have proposed?

Since the other more generally directed questions haven't been tackled by anyone else could you take a crack at them pending time availability of course.

Having worked the polls for candidates in the past I have found the poll workers some of the most diligent and fair people I've seen in the whole process, it’s the higher ups that scare me.

I'd like to see a good explanation of my questions before I can support the machines being taken from the people I see as trustworthy and held by the sharks.

Are you saying you trust the Republicans with the machines? Are you saying you trust the machines? If we're going to "make it happen" we better not trust anyone with the machines, better not trust the machines.

Obviously, there is a long way to go before we have a fail safe system for administration of voting machines, and fail safe machines.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]...
make it happen
said on 7/18/2006 @ 7:15 pm PT...

I'm sorry Winter Patriot where did you get the impression I trust the machines or Republicans?

I think I said I trusted poll workers. I don't however distrust all republicans, just a lot of the elected, and appointed ones. My co-worker is a Republican and so are many of the people we are going to have to convince on this issue.

As for the hostility I keep seeing this issue described as non-partisan and then you as if I trust republicans as if I'm not aloud to.

Here are my questions again.

What are the alternatives, and how are the alternatives any more secure? How would the machines get from the secured location to the polling place and what chain of custody issues are in play?

If seals were placed on machines and tabulated locally after the polls closed and before being connected to a central tabulator so that results could be individually tallied if a machine was found to be compromised, how would machines not given to poll workers be any safer?

A question for Brad: Are you at all worried that any new legislation proposed might actually entrench the use of the machines based on a perceived tightening of security protocols?

I think you meant to address me in your post #15. If so, I can say there are many Republicans I personally trust too, just none of them in official capacities right now. I don't trust the machines at all, and this site is covered with reasons why not to. Paper ballots would be a fine alternative until we get this all sorted out.

I also think I recall Brad answering your question somewhere in these threads.

40 or 50 of us packed the San Diego Board of Supervisors meeting this morning. Our signs said, "Dump Diebold!"

The Chair of the San Diego Democratic Party, Jess Durfee, the head of San Diego Metro Progressive Democrats of America, Judy Hess, a Democratic Congressional candidate, Jeeni Criscenzo, an award-winning journalist, Miriam Raftery, the voter who had filed for a recount, Diane "Gail" Jacobson, and several others spoke to the Board and at the press conference held afterwards. In the crowd were at least four Green Party members and at least two Republicans.

One person asked me why we weren't in the streets in 2000 and 2004. I explained that some of us were in the streets, but the rest of us were looking to our leaders for guidance and it wasn't forthcoming. It has taken us a while, but we have become the leaders we want. Of this morning's group, perhaps even over fifty people, I didn't see a single follower?leaders all!

We the people are finally realizing who we are. (Psssst! All you elected and appointed office holders, quit slacking off and get back to work --- the boss is here!)

Another press conference is being planned for Friday at the Registrar of Voters office, and everyone is planning to keep coming to Board of Supervisors meetings.

Diane "Gail" Jacobsen, who had filed for a recount and been told by the Registrar to put up a $6,000 deposit before he'd reveal which of the documents he is required by law to supply, he might deign hand over, said, "I won't buy a car sight unseen! First tell me what documents you intend to give me, then I'll give you the deposit."

Right on! We pay these folks' salaries and they don't want to even listen to us, no less represent us or act as civil servants. Well, we're not buying any more unverifiable elections or unresponsive officials.

The eyes of the world are on San Diego. As Judy Hess, one of the organizers said, "We're fighting this battle here, so that we don't have to fight it there?435 Congressional Districts in November."

Another person who was there this morning is an attorney, Lillian Ritt, who is one of the plaintiffs in another lawsuit in California, which might be the one mentioned in another of today's top stories, but I'm not certain of that. When RFK Jr's lawsuit was mentioned, a cheer went up.

The despair is dissipating. Today is a weekday, a workday, and yet we got a crowd. The true sign of a participatory democracy is citizen participation. It is starting to happen here and it is awesome!

We all owe Brad a huge debt of gratitude, and also Mimi Kennedy and everyone else involved in organizing, mobilizing, and inspiring us in this effort. And we owe a lot to the San Diego election integrity activists who have spent years working on this, like Brina-Rae Schuchman, Jim and Shar Hamilton, and many others.

Yesterday I'd gone down to make copies of documents to give to the Board of Supervisors this morning, thinking that I'd be alone, or that only a handful of people would show up as usual. When I got home, an emergency call to action from Judy Hess, asking people to come to the Board meeting, was in my email, and I knew that this time things would be different.

Brad, you rock, man! Not to belittle anyone else involved, but I happen to know for a fact that this could not have happened without Brad's superblog and his superhuman efforts in coming to San Diego, and in constantly emailing, phoning, and working with people here. Thank you!

There is a press conference planned for Friday at the Registrar of Voters office. I think it will be at 11:30 a.m., but I don't have the details yet. And we're hoping to keep packing the Board of Supervisors meetings until they respond to us. Jim and Shar gave the Board a petition with over 800 local signatures. Jim, who has been speaking before the Board on this issue for three years now, said he has never seen them pay this much attention before.

But they are still likely to ignore us unless we are there in force every week and our numbers keep increasing. Board meetings are Tuesday mornings at the County Building, and you have to be there before 9:00 a.m. to fill out a public comment form and get two minutes to speak. Several people, including myself, have already signed up to attend every meeting.

Mark: You are obviously one of the good guys and are working hard to change things, so I'm going to try and be gentle as I give you this small piece of advice.

Drop the "DUMP DIEBOLD" slogan immediately.

It's not the right message. It is two steps too soon and will simply bring out the talking points about how this has all been discussed and debated before. "We have a contract with DieBold, and they have done nothing to give us cause to renig on it. If we do, we will be in violation of our contract." etc. etc.

The issue of the day is "HAND COUNT NOW! VERIFY OUR VOTE." OK, it's a little bit longer than your nice little slogan, but it's more accurate.

After the hand count, if there are "discrepancies" then DUMP DIEBOLD is perfectly appropriate, but let's get there first.

"All I'm asking the Republicans to do is count every vote!" Howard Dean. WHY IN THE HELL ARE DEMOCRATS ASKING FOR PERMISSION FROM DUMBASS REPUBLICANS TO COUNT OUR VOTES? This is the problem!- The DNC doesn't demand what is rightfully theirs. We don't need their permission TO COUNT VOTES- the Republicans don't own the damn votes. If Dean and the DNC would just grow some balls and storm the castle, maybe they would think we're serious about democracy - The Declaration of Independence gives us the right to take on any government if it stops serving the people. Elizabeth comment #10 - You are completely on target again. As I've said all along - what's next - the Republicans already know the answers to your questions.

There's a cute scene in the "Votergate" video where Bev Harris visits the California Attorney General to complain that the Secretary of State has illegally certified voting machines that do not meet certification standards. Turns out the Attorney General isn't representing the people of California in this consumer fraud issue, as one might suppose, but is representing the Secretary of State instead, so he just shrugs and walks away.

This is analogous to the situation in San Diego where our former City Attorney was representing some crooks on the City Council at taxpayer expense. We got rid of the crooks anyway (or at least some of them) and our new City Attorney represents the people of San Diego, so the rest of the Council crooks have had to hire private attorneys. Unfortunately, I believe we're still being charged for that also.

As I understand it, if San Diego dumps Diebold now, we can do so without penalty, but if we use their machines in the next election we're stuck with them, so now is the time.

MMIIXX - Went to the NH Gov site - all the rights listed are day by day being stolen by Bushco and the PTB's who own him. Would like to read more about the individual States that are passing articles of IMPEACHMENT since Congress is corrupt and/or frightened of the Bush Crime Family and will not fulfill their oath of office with the exception of Rep. McKinney, Hinchey, Conyers, Feingold - Boxer is stumping for Lieberman! WHY??

Please accept my apologies for this. I've only had the camcorder for 3 days, I'm having trouble editing, and my computer only had enough memory (I've ordered more) for the first few minutes of the film in a horrible low-resolution version, but here's some video of Friday's rally at the ROV: